Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.

HON'BLE DR.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The three applicants, holding the post of private secretary in the Central
administrative Tribunal, have prayed for the following reliefs: -

(i) Call for the records connected with the case.

(ii)Declare that the Private Secretaries of CAT had already been equated with the
Private Secretary of CSS by the Principal Bench of the CAT and it was upheld by
the Apex Court.

(iii)Declare that the PS of the CAT are entitled to get the same treatment as the PS of
the CSSS.

(iv)Declare that each Hon'ble Member of the CAT is entitled to get one Principal
Private Secretary and one Stenographer Gr.C, as per Annexure A3.

(v)Direct the respondents to promote eligible and qualified PS to the post of Principal
Private Secretary as has been done in the case of CSSS by upgradation of the post.

(vi)Direct the respondents to extend the scheme of upgradation of post of PS in CSSS
to the post of Principal Private Secretary in CAT on the same terms and conditions.

(vii)Pass such other relief as are deemed fit, just, fair and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the applicants is that the applicants are functioning as
Private Secretaries in the Central Administrative Tribunal and by virtue of
various judicial orders, their cadre has always been made comparable with that
of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS). In the CSSS Cadre,
the number of posts of Principal Private Secretary has been made
corresponding to the number of posts of Secretaries/Addl. Secretaries and a
similar treatment was extended to the Stenographic cadre of the C.A.T. also
when 16 posts of Private Secretary were upgraded to Principal Private
Secretaries to be attached to each of the Vice Chairman whose status was
comparable to that of the High Court Judge. After amendment had been made
in 2007, abolishing the post of Vice Chairman and elevating the status of
Members of the Tribunal to that of a high Court Judge, each of the member of
the Tribunal became entitled to the services of the Principal Private Secretaries.
Thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to upgrade requisite number of
Private Secretaries to that of Principal Private Secretaries. This not having
been done despite due representations, the applicants came up before the
Tribunal seeking the reliefs as extracted above.

3. The case of the respondents is that the applicants cannot claim any
parity with the CSSS as the Rules for their cadre are different. Again, the Apex
Court in the case of Unnimenon rejected the claim of such parity being claimed
in respect of Accounts Officers of the C.A.T. Further, a Committee has been
formed to consider the requirement of additional Principal Private Secretaries.

4. Counsel for the applicants argued that the case has to be analyzed from
two different angles:-

(a) The requirement of a Principal Private Secretary to each of
the Hon'ble Members of the Tribunal by virtue of their status.

(b) The comparable status of the Central Secretariat
Stenographers Service with that of the Stenographic grade in
the C.A.T.

5. As regards (a) above, there cannot be any doubt that the status of a
Member of the C.A.T. having been equated with that of a High Court Judge,
coupled with the fact that it is the Secretary to the Central Government with
two years service or equivalent who would be eligible to be appointed as
Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal, each Member should be
entitled to a Principal Private Secretary.

6. As regards (b) above, the respondents have all along been treating the
stenographic services in the C.A.T. at par with that of the C.S.S.S. of the
Central Secretariat. Orders at Annexures A-2 would go to show that the
upgradation of 16 posts of Private Secretary to Principal Private Secretary was
on account of the fact that there were then 16 Vice Chairmen in the Tribunal
and each of them having been treated as equivalent to High Court
Judge/Secretary to the Government of India as held by the Tribunal in the case
of S.K. Sareen vs Union of India (OA No. 777 of 1992) which order has been
upheld by the High Court of Delhi and the Apex Court. Today, the post of
Vice Chairman has been done away with and the members have the status of
the High Court Judges as per the amended Act. As such there is absolutely no
justification in the respondent's inaction in upgrading the post of Private
Secretary to Principal Private Secretary to make the total number of Principal
Private Secretaries equal to the number of Members.

7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that of the three
applicants, one has already been promoted as Deputy Registrar and one more
is likely to be promoted. Further, a committee has been set up to study the
entire case and some time is required in this regard.

8. Arguments were heard and documents perused.

9. The Central Administrative Tribunal is a statutory body constituted
under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 and the
conditions of services of both the Chairman, Vice Chairmen and Members of
the Tribunal on the one hand and the staff members of the Tribunal on the
other are all contained in the attendant Rules thereto. The Principal Seat of the
Tribunal (called the Principal Bench) is situated at Delhi, while in all there are
17 Benches all over India.

10. Earlier, the constitution of the Tribunal had a three tier system - (a)
Chairman (b) Vice Chairman and (c) Members (Judicial and Administrative).
Certain qualifications have been prescribed for the posts and the same are as
under:-

"6. Qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice Chairman or other
Members:-(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman
unless he-

(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) has, for at least two years, held the office of Vice-Chairman [ ];

(c) Omitted.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairman
unless he-

(a) is, or has been, {or is qualified to be,} a Judge of a High Court;
or

(b) has, at least two years, held the post of a Secretary to the Government of
India or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a
scale of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the Government of
India; or
[(bb)has, for at least five years, held the post of an Additional Secretary to the
Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State
Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional
Secretary to the Government of India; or]

(c) has, for a period of not less than three years, held office as [a Judicial
Member or an Administrative Member].

[(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member
unless he-

(a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in
Grade I of that Service for at least three years.

(3-A) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as an Administrative
Member unless he-

(a) has, for at least two years, held the post of an Additional Secretary
to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State
Government carrying a sc ale of pay which is not less than that of an
Additional Secretary to the Government of India; or

(b) has, for at least three years, held the post of a Jointn Secretary to the
Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State
Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of a Joint
Secretary to the Government of India, and shall, in either case, have adequate
administrative experience.].

(4)[Subject to the provisions of sub-section 97), the Chairman], Vice
Chairman and every other Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal
shall be appointed by the President..

(5) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (7), the Chairman,] Vice-
Chairman and every other Member of an Administrative Tribunal for State
shall be appointed by the Present after consultation with the Governor of the
concerned State.

(6)The Chairman, Vice Chairman and every other Member of a Joint
Administrative Tribunal shall, subject to the terms of the agreement
between the participating State Governments published under sub-section
(3) of Section 4, (and subject to the provisions of sub-section (7) be
appointed by the president after consultation with the Governor of the
concerned States.

(7) No appointment of a person possessing the qualifications specified in this
section as the Chairman, a Vice Chairman or a Member shall be made
except after consultation with the chief Justice of India.]
EXPLANATION-In computing for the purposes of this Section, the period
during which a person has held any post under the central or a State
Government, there shall be included the period during which he has held
any other post under the Central or a State Government (including an office
under this Act0 carrying the same scale of pay as that of the first mentioned
post or a higher scale of pay."

11. The secretarial assistance to the Chairman, Vice Chairman (till such
posts existed) and members of the Tribunal is provided by recruitment of
persons in the secretarial Cadre. The said secretarial Cadre consists of (a) Sr.
Principal Secretary; (b) Principal Private Secretary; (c) Private Secretary; (d)
Steno Grade C/Court Master and (e) Steno Grade D.

12. The Principal Private Secretaries of which we are concerned in this O.A,
are governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Private
Secretary) Recruitment Rules, 1996 as amended by the 1998 Rules. The
Schedule to the 1996 Rules reads as under:-

Schedule
Name of post No.of posts Classifi-cation Scale of pay Whether Whether benefit Age limit for
selection post or of added years of direct recruits
non-selection service admissible
under Rule 30 of
the General Civil
Service (Pension)
Rules, 1973
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Principal Private 1 General CentralRs.2000-100- Selection Not applicable Not applicable
Secretary Service Group 'A'3500-125-4500
(1996) Gazetted -

Ministerial
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Educational and Whether age and Period of Method of In case of Composition of Circumstances
other edu.quafications probation, if any. recruitment recruitment by departmental in which UPSC
qualifications prescribed for whether by direct promotion/deput promotion has to be
required for direct recruits recruitment or by ation committee consulted in
direct recruits will apply in the deputation/transf taking
case of promo er and recruitment
tees percentage of
vacancies to be
filled by various
methods
Not applicable le Not applicable Not applicable By promotion Private Secretary Group-A, DPC
in the scale of pay consisting of (i)
of Rs.2000-50- Chairman, CAT
2300-EB-75- or a Vice
3300-100-3500 Chairman of the
with at least 8 Tribunal to be
years regular nominated by the
service in the Chairman, CAT
grade Chairman

(ii) Member,
CAT to be
nominated by the
Chairman -

Member
(iii) Registrar,
Principal Bench
or any other
Registrar/Joint
Registrar to be
nominated by the
Chairman -
Member

13. Of the above, the Senior Principal Private Secretary is attached to the
office of the Chairman, and along with him, Principal Private Secretary and
Steno Grade C have also been attached to the office of the Chairman. By
Annexure A-2 order dated 9th February, 2005, in all sixteen posts of Private
Secretaries were upgraded to Principal Private Secretaries, attached to the Vice
Chairman of the Tribunal. The number of Principal Private Secretaries were
comparable to the total number of sanctioned posts of Vice Chairmen at that
point of time. And, at that time, the status of Vice Chairman was equated with
that of a High Court Judge.

14. In 2007 amendment to the A.T. Act, 1985 has been passed which inter
alia made the following provisions.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006
NO. 1 OF 2007 [ 29th December, 2006]
An Act further to amend the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty- seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows:-
Short title and commencement.-

2. In section 3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as the principal Act),-

(I) in clause (i), for the words" the Chairman or a Vice- Chairman", the words"
the Chairman" shall be substituted.

(II) in clause (ia), the words" and a Vice- Chairman" shall be omitted.
(III) for clause (u), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-' (u)" Vice-
Chairman" means a Member who has been authorized by the appropriate
Government to perform administrative functions at each of the places where
Benches of the Tribunal have been set up.'.

(a) in sub- section (1), for the words" a Chairman and such number of Vice-
Chairman and Judicial and Administrative Members", the words" a Chairman
and such number of Judicial and Administrative Members" shall be substituted;

(b) in sub- section (4),-

(i) in clause (b), for the words" the Vice- Chairman or other Members", the
words" a Member" shall be substituted;

(ii) in clause (c),-

(I) For the words" the Vice- Chairman or the Judicial Member", the words" the
Judicial Member" shall be substituted;

(II) for the words" the Vice- Chairman or, as the case may be, the Judicial
Member or the Administrative Member", the words" the Judicial Member or the
Administrative Member, as the case may be" shall be substituted.
Substitution of new section for section 6.-

5. For section 6 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted,
namely:-"

6. Qualifications for appointment as Chairman, Vice- Chairman and other
members.- (1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairman
unless he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court: Provided that a person
appointed as Vice- Chairman before the commencement of this Act shall be
qualified for appointment as Chairman if such person has held the office of the
Vice- Chairman at least for a period of two years.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment,-

(a) as an Administrative Member, unless he has held for at least two years the
post of Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central
or State Government and carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of a
Secretary to the Government of India for at least two years or held a post of
Additional Secretary to the Government of India for at least five years or any
other post under the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay
which is not less than that of Additional Secretary to the Government of India at
least for a period of five years: Provided that the officers belonging to All- India
services who were or are on Central deputation to a lower post shall be deemed
to have held the post of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case may be,
from the date such officers were granted proforma promotion or actual
promotion whichever is earlier to the level of Secretary or Additional Secretary,
as the case may be, and the period spent on Central deputation after such date
shall count for qualifying service for the purposes of this clause;

(b) as a Judicial Member, unless he is or qualified to be a Judge of a High Court
or he has for at least two years held the post of a Secretary to the Government of
India in the Department of Legal Affairs or the legislative department including
Member- Secretary, Law Commission of India or held a post of Additional
Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and
Legislative Department at least for a period of five years.
(3) The Chairman and every other Member of the Central Administrative
Tribunal shall be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of India by
the President.

(4) Subject to the provision of sub- section (3), the Chairman and every other
Member of an Administrative Tribunal for a State shall be appointed by the
President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned State.
(5) The Chairman and every other Member of a Joint Administrative Tribunal
shall, subject to the provisions of sub- section (3) and subject to the terms of the
agreement between the participating State Governments published under sub-
section (3) of section 4 of the principal Act, be appointed by the President after
consultation with the Governors of the concerned States. Explanation.- In
computing for the purpose of this section, the period during which a person has
held any post under the Central or State Government, there shall be included the
period during which he has held any other post under the Central or State
Government (including an office under this Act) carrying the same scale of pay
as that of first mentioned post on a higher scale of pay.''.
Amendment of section 7.-

6. In section 7 of the principal Act, for the words" Vice- Chairman or, as the
case may be, such one of the Vice- Chairman", the words" such one of the
Members" shall be substituted.

7. For section 8 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted,
namely:-

" 8. Term of office.-

(1) The Chairman shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date
on which he enters upon his office: Provided that no Chairman shall hold office
as such after he has attained the age of sixty- eight years.
(2) A Member shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on
which he enters upon his office extendable by one more term of five years:
Provided that no Member shall hold office as such after he has attained the age
of sixty- five years.

(3) The conditions of service of Chairman and Members shall be the same as
applicable to Judges of the High Court.".

(ii) after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-" Provided
further that where a serving Government officer is appointed as a Member, he
shall be deemed to have retired from the service to which he belonged on the date
on which he assumed the charge of the Member but his subsequent service as
Member shall, at his option, be reckoned as a post- retirement re- employment
counting for pension and other retirement benefits in the service to which he
belonged.".

Provided that, however, such Chairman and the Members appointed before the
coming into force of Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 , may on
completion of their term or attainment of the age of sixty- five or sixty- two years,
as the case may be, whichever is earlier may, if eligible in terms of section 8 as
amended by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 be considered
for a fresh appointment in accordance with the selection procedure laid down for
such appointments subject to the condition that the total term in office of the
Chairman shall not exceed five years and that of the Members, ten years.".
Amendment of section 11.-

(I) in clause (b), the words" Vice- Chairman or" shall be omitted;
(II) clause (c) and clause (d) shall be omitted; and
(III) in clause (e), the words" or Vice- Chairman" at both the places where they
occur shall be omitted:

(IV) in clause (f), the word" Vice- Chairman" at both the places where they occur
shall omitted.

12. For section 12 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted,
namely:-

" 12. (1) The Chairman shall exercise such financial and administrative powers
over the Benches as may be vested in him under the rules made by the
appropriate Government.

(2) The appropriate Government may designate one or more Members to be the
Vice- Chairman or, as the case may be, Vice- Chairmen thereof and the Members
so designated shall exercise such of the powers and perform such of the functions
of the Chairman as may be delegated to him by the Chairman by a general or
special order in writing.".

(i) in clause (b), for the words" Chairman, Vice- Chairman or other Member",
the words" Chairman or other Member" shall be substituted;

(ii) in clause (c), for the words" Chairman, Vice- Chairman and other Members",
the words" Chairman and other Members" shall be substituted.

15. With the above Amendment Act, 2007 the post of Vice Chairman was
abolished and all the posts (other than the Chairman) have come to be called as
Members. It was at this time that the status of the Members has been equated
with that of High Court judges by providing that the service conditions of the
Members would be the same as applicable to the Judges of the High Court.
Accordingly, the terms and conditions, such as pay structure, leave, medical
facilities, transport facilities, Leave Travel Concession, etc., of such members
of the Tribunal have all been brought at par with that of the Judge of the High
Court.

16. The hierarchy in the stenographic cadre in the C.A.T. is comparable to
that of in the Central Secretariat Stenographic Services (CSSS). This equation,
though not provided for in any statutory provision, has been so held in the
following decisions of the Tribunal and on the basis of the same, whatever
directions were given to the respondents have all been duly complied with:

17. Two aspects are to be seen at this juncture. First is the entitlement of the
Members of the Tribunal as to the services of a Principal Private Secretary and
the next is whether the claim of the applicant for upgradation at par with that of
the CSSS Cadre is justified.

18. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, with the amended Act (2007)
the terms and conditions of the Members are the same as that of a High Court
judge. The functions of the Members of the Tribunal are adjudication of
service matters of the Central Government servants and those of certain other
notified institutions. The onerous functions of the Members are certainly
comparable to those of the High Court Judges as could be substantiated by the
observations of the Apex Court in some of the Judgments as hereunder:-

"8.65 A Tribunal which substitutes the High Court as an alternative
institutional mechanism for judicial review must be no less efficacious
than the High Court. Such a Tribunal must inspire confidence and
public esteem that it is a highly competent and expert mechanism with
judicial approach and objectivity. What is needed in a Tribunal, which
is intended to supplant the High Court, is legal training and
experience, and judicial acumen, equipment and approach."

"It must be remembered that CAT is a Tribunal constituted
under Article 323-A of the Constitution and is expected to
have the same jurisdiction as that of a High Court.
Consequently, Parliament has taken great care to enact, vide
Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, that no appointment of a person
possessing the qualifications prescribed in the Act as a
member shall be made, except after consultation with the
Chief Justice of India. The consultation with the Chief Justice
of India is neither a routine matter, nor an idle formality. It
must be remembered that a member of an Administrative
Tribunal like CAT exercises vast judicial powers, and such
member must be ensured absolute judicial independence,
free from influences of any kind likely to interfere with
independent judicial functioning or militate there against."

(c) The difference in status of a member prior and posterior to the 2007
Amendment has been taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Shankar
Raju vs Union of India (2011) 2 SCC 132 by referring to the provisions of
Section 8 of the Act before and after Amendment:

Section 8(Before Amendment) Section 8(After Amendment)
"8. Term of office.--The Chairman, 8. Term of office.--(1) The Chairman
Vice-Chairman or other Member shall hold office as such for a term of
shall hold office as such for a term five years from the date on which he
of five years from the date on enters upon his office:Provided that
which he enters upon his office, no Chairman shall hold office as such
but shall be eligible for after he has attained the age of
reappointment for another term of sixty-eight years.
five years:Provided that no
Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other (2) A Member shall hold office as
Member shall hold office as such such for a term of five years from
after he has attained- the date on which he enters upon his
office extendable by one more term

(a) in the case of the Chairman or of five years:

Vice-Chairman, the age of sixty-

five years, and(b) in the case of Provided that no Member shall
any other Member, the age of hold office as such after he has
sixty-two years. attained the age of sixty-five years.

(3) The conditions of service of
Chairman and Members shall be the
same as applicable to Judges of the
High Court.

(d) In an unfortunate event of a Member of the Tribunal having been
harassed by the Police Authorities at Ranchi, when the Apex Court had dealt
with the case, the following observation had been made by the Court in
Relating To Criminal Intimidation, In Re v. Union of India, (2009) 8 SCC
252, at page 255 :

It is an obligation on the part of the State authorities and all
other persons concerned to provide a conducive atmosphere
for dispensation of justice. (underlining supplied)

(e) In yet another case, the respondents themselves had submitted before the
Apex Court about the status of the Member of the Tribunal. In the case of A.K.

"19. On service of notice, the counter-affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the respondents by Ms Manju Pandey, Under-
Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel, Government of India.
In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 was intended to achieve
the following objects:

(i) To abolish the post of Vice-Chairman in the
Tribunals as it was creating an avoidable three-tier
institution and resulting in anomalies in
qualifications, age of retirement, service
conditions, etc. The Act was passed so that all the
Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal
can be elevated to the same status as of a High
Court Judge and, therefore, the service conditions
of the Members of the Tribunals were upgraded to
that of a Judge of the High Court i.e. the same as
was of a Vice-Chairman under the unamended
Act."

19. The Apex Court had, in the above case, after considering the affidavit of
the Respondents, further observed as under:

"23. What is asserted in the counter-affidavit is that as per
Section 12 of the amended Act, the Chairman of the Tribunal
would have all financial and administrative powers over the
Benches, but the Vice-Chairman can be designated by the
Central Government, obviously with concurrence of the
Chairman, and a Member so designated would discharge
such functions of the Chairman as the Chairman may direct
and, therefore, it is wrong to contend that by introduction of
Section 12(2) of the Act, the independence of the judiciary
and independence of the Tribunal is sought to be curtailed by
the executive. It is explained in the counter-affidavit that
earlier the post of Vice-Chairman was not a promotional post
for a Member of the Tribunal and the qualifications of the
Vice-Chairman were different from a Member of the Tribunal,
but, by amendment the qualifications of Members of the
Tribunal have been raised to that of the Vice-Chairman and
this change in qualifications neither affects the status of a
retired High Court Judge nor confers arbitrary benefits on the
non-Judicial Members and, therefore, the said provision is
perfectly legal. It is further pointed out in the counter-
affidavit that except the change in the nomenclature, a
retired High Court Judge would get exactly the same
facilities, if he is appointed today as Member of the Tribunal
instead of designating him as Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal
under the unamended Act and, therefore, it is wrong to
contend that the amendments are violative of the provisions
of the Constitution. (underlining supplied)."

20. The above observations of the Apex Court and the admission by the
DOPT before the Apex Court would go to show that the equation of the status
of the Member of the Tribunal is with that of the High Court judge. It was for
this reason that the service conditions have also been kept at par with that of
the High Court judge. Again, the service condition should include identical
conducive atmosphere and facilities comparable to that of the High Court
judge. Viewed from this, entitlement of a Member for a Principal Private
Secretary is more than justified.

21. Next is the question of equation of the Secretariat service with that of the
Central Secretariat Stenographers service. In the CSSS cadre, the upgradation
of various posts and the total number of posts in each of the grade corresponds
to the status of the officers for whose assistances the services of such staff are
utilized. In the CSSS cadre, the latest order passed is as at Annexure A-3 dated
28th October, 2005. This provides for availability of the services of one Senior
Principal Private Secretary, one Private Secretary and one Steno Grade-C to
each of the Secretary/Special Secretary/Additional Secretary to the
Government of India and officers of equivalent rank working in the
Ministries/Departments of Government of India. Vide Annexure A-4 OM
dated 18th November 2005, it has been clearly stated that in order to maintain
parity in the total number of posts of Senior PPS and PPS of the CSSS with
that of the total number of posts of Secretary/Addl. Secretary level Officers
(who are provided secretarial/stenographic assistance by the members of
CSSS) the Government has also decided to appropriately adjust the total
number of posts of PPS through up-gradation/down-gradation of posts of
PS/PPS. Not only that such a numerical equation has been provided for in
respect of the present sanctioned strength but even in future, there would be a
corresponding parity in the numerical strength of CSSS cadre staff as is spelt
out in para 4 of the said OM dated 18th November, 2005 wherein it has been
stated, "In order to maintain parity in the total number of posts of Senior PPS
and PPS of CSSS with that of the number of posts of Secretary/Additional
Secretary level Officers, in future, cadre authorities are requested to ensure that
whenever there is any change in the number of posts of Secretary/Addl.
Secretary/equivalent in their respective cadre units this Department may please
be informed immediately to enable it to make appropriate adjustments in the
number of Posts of PPS." It is on the same basis that the applicants claim that
in their case too there must be up-gradation of posts of PS to PPS
corresponding to the number of Members who are equated in status to that of
High Court Judge.

22. Though the counsel for the respondents repeatedly submitted that there
cannot be any comparison of the stenographic services of the CAT with that of
the CSSS, the fact remains that such an equation has already been affirmed by
the Tribunal in the case of S.R. Dheer and others vs Union of India (vide OA
No. 164 of 2009). In that case, paragraphs 48 to 52 of the order dated 19-02-
2009 as extracted below refers:-

"DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

48. The word "historical" has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary,
Tenth Edition (Revised) as belonging to or set in the past. Historical parity is
the parity or equality maintained in the context of the present Original
Application between the pay scales of PSs/SOs with that of their counterparts
in CSS/CSSS in the wake of the recommendations by several Pay
Commissions. A historical parity would be when it is established as an
obligation to one who is claiming parity of pay scales with the class or
category had been situated in the past at par in the equivalent pay scale with
the counterparts with whom such parity is claimed. It is no more res integra
as transpired from the Chart, which is not disputed by the respondents, that
earlier in the cadre of Stenographers Grade #C#/Assistants in the Fourth
Central Pay Commission, the scale of pay was Rs.1400-2600, which had been
upgraded in case of CSS/CSSS to Rs. 1640-2900 by issuing an O.M. but it has
not been effected in CAT. The litigation resulted in an order passed by the
DOP&T in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal in OA No. 2865/1991
and CCP No. 262/1993 wherein it has been decided to grant pay scale to the
counterparts CAT employees of Rs. 1640-2900 even without amending the
recruitment rules. However, subsequently the rules were amended. In S.K.
Sareen vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA No. 777/1992 decided on 20.12.1999),
the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 from 01.01.1986 was sought on the principle of
#equal pay for equal work# at par with their counterparts in CSSS. When
order was affirmed by the Delhi High Court on 19.04.2002 and SLP against
which was also turned down, in CP 405/2003, an order was passed on
09.02.2005 upgrading the 16 posts of Private Secretaries to Principal Private
Secretaries and one post of PPS to Senior Principal Private Secretary in the
relevant pay scales at par with CSSS. This clearly shows that the parity in the
pay scale has been maintained in the CAT relating to two categories upto the
stage of Fourth CPC.

49. The only anomaly which had occurred on account of grant of pay scale
of Rs. 1640-2900 has been set right on a judicial dicta which holds the field
and was complied with.

50. In Fifth CPC the PSs/SOs were recommended the pay scale of Rs.
6500-10500 and also the counterparts in CSS/CSSS. However, the NFSG
scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to the merged grade of A & B of PSs of CSSS has
been allowed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and actually w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The
applicants have raised this issue before the Ernakulam Bench where the CP
converted into Misc. Application, an affidavit filed by the Government clearly
indicates that the Commission has examined and recommended the issue of
parity of employees of CAT with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS cadre in para
7.32.15 of the Report of the 6th Pay Commission. It is further reiterated on
acceptance by the DOP&T vide letter dated 27.03.2008 where the parity,
recommended by the 6th CPC in para 3.1.9 and 7.32.15 of the Report, with
counterparts in CSS/CSSS has been accepted.

51. In the above view of the matter regarding the parity of pay scale in 5th
CPC in the wake of an admitted fact of the historical parity between the
CSS/CSSS with counterparts in CAT, a final decision is awaited for grant of
NFSG grade of Rs.8000-13500 notionally and actually to the employees of the
Tribunal. However, as this is not the issue before us, except reiterating in law
their demand, the issue of historical parity between the PSs/SOs of CAT and
on the other hand SOs/PSs of CSS/CSSS is no more res integra and once
accepted by the government and recommended by 6th CPC, the aforesaid
recommendations contained in paragraphs 3.1.9 and 7.32.15 having been
accepted by the Government, the stand now taken by the respondents that
what is applicable to the applicants in the present OA is para 3.1.14 of the
recommendations of the 6th CPC is absolutely misconceived. It is pertinent to
note that this para applies to non-secretariat offices and to those for whom
there is no historical parity with CSS/CSSS and in favour of whom a criteria
of recommendations has not been laid down in the 6th CPC recommendations.
On a juxtaposition, 6th CPC while making its recommendations in para
7.32.15 as to cadre structure of higher pay scale in CAT reiterated that
Assistants and Stenographers in CAT have demanded pay scales at par with
their counterparts in CSS/CSSS and as the Commission has already
recommended parity between the similarly placed posts in field offices and
Secretariat, no separate recommendation has been made. The only logical
and rationale inference to be drawn is that whatever has been recommended
in para 3.1.9 is to be applied mutatis mutandis to the employees of the CAT on
the condition precedent being fulfilled, which is establishment of historical
parity with CSS/CSSS. The recommendations contained in para 3.1.14 of 6th
CPC Report where the field organizations and non-secretariat organizations
have been recommended the pay scale are not at all applicable to the
employees of the CAT, as a specific recommendation made in paragraph
7.32.15 Commission having recommended parity between the similarly placed
posts in field offices and secretariat the instant demand has been fulfilled. It
is trite that when there is a specific recommendation made as transpired from
para 3.1.9 as to parity with pay scale of CSS/CSSS structure the asterisk (*)
clearly shows that even to the non-secretariat offices and organizations being
carved out as an exception to the recommendations contained in para 3.1.14
is that those organizations which are not exhaustive but includes departments
and organization which have had a historical parity the pay scale would be at
par with CSS/CSSS. It is trite that under the principle of interpretation that in
case of interpretation of a service rule, if two views are possible then the rule
has to be interpreted with the practice followed in the department for long
time as held in Shailendra Dania & Ors. vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors., 2007 (2) SCC
(L&S) 202, a marginal note with a provision is an integral part of it and being
an exception in the instant case as an asterisk (*) to para 3.1.9, the same has
applicability to all field offices and non-secretariat organizations, all
departments where there has been historical parity with the pay scale of their
counterparts in CSS/CSSS. We cannot read para 3.1.14 in isolation of para
3.1.9 and 7.32.15 where both the recommendations having been accepted by
the Government, only applying para 3.1.14 to the exclusion of 3.1.9 would
amount to approbating and reprobating simultaneously, as a conscious and
well taken decision when transformed into an affidavit of the Government
before the Ernakulam Bench, an admission to acceptance of parity and
acceptance also of established parity as a historical background leaves no
doubt in our mind that there has been a historical parity of SOs/PSs in CAT
with their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. They cannot now, as a contradictory
stand, deny the same as it would not only be unfair but also is a misuse of
their discretionary power which is to be exercised by an administrative
authority judiciously after balancing all the relevant factors as ruled by the
Apex Court in Union of India vs. Kuldip Singh, 2004 (2) SCC 590. A
discretion vested in the administrative authority is neither unfettered nor
absolute. It is to be exercised in consonance with the rights of a government
employee and Constitution of India. A consideration worth in law is one,
which thinks over on active application of mind all the relevant consideration
and factors as ruled by the Apex Court in Bhikubhai Patel (supra). As a
model employer just to deprive the applicants their rights and legitimate dues
without any justifiable reasons and on misreading of their CSSS Revised Pay
Rules, 2008, irrelevant considerations have been grounded to deprive the
applicants the requisite pay scales on established historical parity with those
of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. Learned counsel for the respondents
relied upon the decision of High Court in Mohinder Pal Singh (supra) and in
M.V.R. Rao (supra) by a Larger Bench of this Tribunal. In this regard it is
pertinent to note that this issue of parity of CAT employees with CSS/CSSS
has been dealt with by this Tribunal in S.K. Sareen#s case (supra) which, on
affirmation from the High Court, and also rejection of SLP, on
implementation by the respondents not only attained finality but also is an
admission to the effect by the respondents that the SOs/PSs of CAT are
maintaining historical parity with those of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS. It
is worthwhile to note that there is even a finding recorded that the duties and
functional requirements of the CAT employees are more onerous than their
counterparts in CSS/CSSS, which has not been overturned by any dicta. A
judicial dicta when holds the field and the arena in which it operates, it is
impermissible in law to the administrative authorities to infiltrate it as ruled
by the Apex Court in Anil Rattan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, 2001 (5)
SCC 327. The Apex Court has also ruled in Dhampur Sugar Mill v. State of
Uttranchal, 2007 (11) SCALE 374 that when a public authority acts with
oblique motive, bad faith or takes into account extraneous or irrelevant
consideration, the exercise has to be held as not in accordance with law.

52. In the above view of the matter the contention that the Government has
not accepted the claim of the applicants as to the parity with CSS/CSSS is
founded on a ground and justification, which has been misconceived by them
and wrongly applied. Such a consideration cannot be a consideration worth
in law."

23. In view of the fact that earlier vide Annexure A-2, commensurate with
the number of Vice Chairmen, sixteen number of PPS had been made available
by upgrading corresponding number of PS to PPS; similarly, the situation as at
present does warrant such an upgradation to enable each of the Member of the
Tribunal to have the services of PPS.

24. It has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that a sub
committee had been formed to consider the issue. It is seen that the committee
which was formed long back and no tangible proposal had been brought out
since one by one, the members constituting the Committee kept on demitting
the charges as Members. And, here again, what kind of proposal could they
make over the entitlement of PPS to Members? They cannot say that the status
of a Member does not call for a PPS for assistance. Nor can they say that the
PPS/PS/stenographers in CAT cannot be equated with their counterparts in the
CSSS cadre as such a parity has already been established through a judicial
decision. Thus, the excuse the respondents seek that the sub committee is
examining is purely to justify the delay in their action.

25. Attempt was made to refer to the case of one Unnimenon in which the
Supreme Court has held that he does not belong to an organized Accounts
cadre. That case has no bearing to the facts of this case.

26. In view of the above discussion, the claim of the applicant deserves to be
allowed. We accordingly allow the OA. In fact the respondents have to keep
in mind the provision for making available the services of a PPS to each
member in future also as in the case of CSSS cadre as contained in para 4 of
Annexure A-4 order dated 18th November, 2005. Since there is no such prayer,
we do not pass any order in that regard. However, in so far as the
implementation of this order is concerned, the claim is not personal to the three
applicants only but equally applies to all those who are similarly situated. For
it is one of the cardinal principles of jurisprudence that a judgment in rem is to
be made applicable to all those similarly situated without driving such similarly
situated persons to knock at the doors of the Tribunal. In this regard, the
following decisions of the Apex Court and also the Pay Commission
Recommendations are relevant to be reflected:-

(a) The Apex Court as early as in 1975 in the case of Amrit Lal Berry
v. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 , held as under:-

We may, however, observe that when a citizen aggrieved by the
action of a government department has approached the Court
and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like
circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of
responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that
they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the
need to take their grievances to court.

"... those who could not come to the court need not be at a
comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If
they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to
similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this
Court.

(c) The V Central Pay Commission in its recommendation, in regard
to extension of benefit of court judgment to similarly situated, held
as under:-

"126.5 - Extending judicial decisions in matters of a
general nature to all similarly placed employees. - We
have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation
involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of
judgment is only extended to those employees who had
agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This
generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to
the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias
Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of
1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees
who are similarly situated are required to be given the
benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the
original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by
the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other
judgments like G.C. Ghosh v. UOI, [ (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) ],
dated 20-7-1998; K.I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC

600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc.
Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one
specific case either by the judiciary or the Government
should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing
the other employees to approach the court of law for an
identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will
apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of
general nature applicable to a group or category of
Government employees is concerned and not to matters
relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual
employee."

"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from
time to time postulates that all persons similarly
situated should be treated similarly. Only because one
person has approached the court that would not mean
that persons similarly situated should be treated
differently.

28. A pragmatic situation involved here is how to implement the same. In
the case of CSSS, there is a proper pyramidical structure of the entire hierarchy
as could be seen from Annexure A-8 order dated 25th February, 2011. The
ratio of PPS to PS is approximately 5:13 (773:2041). In the case of CAT, after
catering for each of the Member one PPS which would account for as many as
approximately 60 in number, hardly there would be any PS available. The up-
gradation could well be possible with the existing Private Secretaries, but as
and when the post of PPS become vacant, these may not be able to be filled up
by promoting the PS as adequate number of PS may not be available. The
Recruitment Rules provide only for promotion. Thus, there would be a need to
suitably amend the Recruitment rules, to pave way for filling up of the future
vacancies in the PPS grade. It is for the Government to consider and modify
the Recruitment Rules.

29. Thus, the OA stands allowed. It is declared that each of the Members of
the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be provided with the services of a
Principal Private Secretary. For this purpose, respondents shall upgrade the
requisite number of the post of Private Secretaries to that of PPS. For such an
up-gradation which is identical to that in the CSSS grade, vide Annexure A-8,
the normal rule of matching saving etc., shall not be insisted for the purpose of
up-gradation.

30. This order shall be complied with, within a period of four months from
the date of communication of this order. No costs.